First evidence on SM

[deanpet21]

Wait wait wait. But you want a RB at 17??

b/c a dynamic Rb can make a difference to a team like a pass rusher.

 

[ehb5]

b/c a dynamic Rb can make a difference to a team like a pass rusher.

If it's just about making a difference Scherff did that already.

 

[deanpet21]

If it's just about making a difference Scherff did that already.

So Scherff made the same mount of impact as Vic Beasley an Zeke?

 

[ehb5]

So Scherff made the same mount of impact as Vic Beasley an Zeke?

Yea probably.

Look you can't claim you don't want Scherff because a guard is worth less than a pass rusher AND claim you want a RB at 17 because it's worth more. That's ass backwards.

 

[j_y19]

Jesus man you still don't get it? I am calling you out because while others complained about Dean's habit of defending his position you were the only one to clearly imply Dean called him a bust. When I mentioned Scherff specifically you replied that I must have missed his posts calling him a bust. You don't see that as claiming Dean called him a bust? Really? That is just too weird to me, of course you claimed he called the player a bust and you were the only one to make that claim. That is why I am "singling you out". Your argument is different than theirs.

You are right this is getting old. You are picking at nit hairs. You are clearly butt hurt about something else and have decided to use this word battle to express it. I never used Dean's name, I never claimed he called him a bust I said SOME were acting as if he were a bust. IF you can't distinguish the difference, not my problem. You were the one to apply Dean's name to my post. Not I. But I will admit that Dean has been acting like Scherff is a bust with his constant whining. For that statement, I take complete ownership.

 

[deanpet21]

Yea probably.

Look you can't claim you don't want Scherff because a guard is worth less than a pass rusher AND claim you want a RB at 17 because it's worth more. That's ass backwards.

No its not. OG's typically do not get selected over De's. AS far as RB's if you have nothing like we do in the backfield then a 1st round pock is justified for a RB.

 

[ehb5]

No its not. OG's typically do not get selected over De's. AS far as RB's if you have nothing like we do in the backfield then a 1st round pock is justified for a RB.

No its not. I've shown several times why a RB isn't worth a 1st rounder in 99% of cases. That production can be found later.

 

[deanpet21]

No its not. I've shown several times why a RB isn't worth a 1st rounder in 99% of cases. That production can be found later.

Sure it can but its not crazy for us to go Rb at 17. There would always be steals in the late rounds.

 

[Sharkinva]

Yea probably.

Look you can't claim you don't want Scherff because a guard is worth less than a pass rusher AND claim you want a RB at 17 because it's worth more. That's ass backwards.

Far be it for me to agree with Dean. But you cant look at this in a bubble. Which is exactly what you are doing.

If the pass rusher you are taking is a Dion Jordan type, and you have a shot at Davonta Freeman.... Which is the BETTER pick. Sure you NEED the pass rusher more, but which player is going to do more for the team. Not some personal feeling that RBs are not worth a first round pick, but whats going to improve your team the most?? An average pass rusher, or a possible game changer at RB?

Now look, if the next JJ Watt, Julius Peppers etc is sitting there at 17, and Cook is sitting there at 17.. .we probably cant go wrong... unless we draft Watson over both. And as much as you will say we arent forcing the defense pick out of some sense of greater need, But to a degree thats exactly what is being done.

 

[ehb5]

Sure it can but its not crazy for us to go Rb at 17. There would always be steals in the late rounds.

How often do you think a RB in the first ends up worth it? In the last 10 or so years you've got AP and maybe Zeke.

 

[Sharkinva]

No its not. I've shown several times why a RB isn't worth a 1st rounder in 99% of cases. That production can be found later.

HOw well have we done at finding that production on a consistent basis?? You seriously would reach on a pass rusher over taking what might be an elite level RB because that production MIGHT be found later in the draft... maybe if we get lucky??

 

[ehb5]

Far be it for me to agree with Dean. But you cant look at this in a bubble. Which is exactly what you are doing.

If the pass rusher you are taking is a Dion Jordan type, and you have a shot at Davonta Freeman.... Which is the BETTER pick. Sure you NEED the pass rusher more, but which player is going to do more for the team. Not some personal feeling that RBs are not worth a first round pick, but whats going to improve your team the most?? An average pass rusher, or a possible game changer at RB?

Now look, if the next JJ Watt, Julius Peppers etc is sitting there at 17, and Cook is sitting there at 17.. .we probably cant go wrong... unless we draft Watson over both. And as much as you will say we arent forcing the defense pick out of some sense of greater need, But to a degree thats exactly what is being done.

I don't know why you keep using this argument though. Nobody's arguing take some shitty defensive player over a stud rb. I'm arguing take the risky high upside not RB player over the risky high upside RB.

The only way your argument makes sense is if Cook is some generational prospect while every defensive player in the late first range is just meh as a prospect (which considering they're projected in the mid to late first obviously isn't the case).

 

[ehb5]

HOw well have we done at finding that production on a consistent basis?? You seriously would reach on a pass rusher over taking what might be an elite level RB because that production MIGHT be found later in the draft... maybe if we get lucky??

For 1 we haven't done that badly. For 2 why does it matter how we've done. It matters how the league has done. And the answer is its done well.

Lol. Your good at doing that - just ever so slightly tweaking the person's argument to completely change their meaning. No I'm not proposing we reach for shit. At this point you know this and are just deliberately trying to paint my argument as something it isn't. But let me be as clear as possible. WE DON'T NEED TO REACH.

Again. Your argument only makes sense if Cook is a generational prospect and all the other options are just ehh. If you wana argue that I'm game but that's really the only way it makes sense.

 

[deanpet21]

How often do you think a RB in the first ends up worth it? In the last 10 or so years you've got AP and maybe Zeke.

you are right but we are so desperate for star power from that position. I don't know how you can be upset with Cook or Mccaffery

 

[Sharkinva]

I don't know why you keep using this argument though. Nobody's arguing take some shitty defensive player over a stud rb. I'm arguing take the risky high upside not RB player over the risky high upside RB.

The only way your argument makes sense is if Cook is some generational prospect while every defensive player in the late first range is just meh as a prospect (which considering they're projected in the mid to late first obviously isn't the case).

And your argument of how often do first round RBs work out, ignores the fact that about 70% of them go to teams that HAVE no other talent on offense. Sure some guys are just a bust period. But I would say first round RBs bust at about the same rate as top five QBs. Mainly because if you are being picked in the top five at QB, most times you are going to a team that needs a shit ton more than just a QB.

You also ignore over all impact that a RB like Cook or Fournett could have on this team... which i think is alot greater than a D lineman like McDowell. Because face it, the defense is two to three years away from being able to assist the offense in any meaningful capacity with or without another pass rusher.

I think depending on who is there, RB might be the better player, and the better compliment to the team. Do we need more defensive help... sure we do, but Im not in favor of passing on a stud RB if he is there just to say.. we are trying to improve the defense at all costs.

 

[ehb5]

you are right but we are so desperate for star power from that position. I don't know how you can be upset with Cook or Mccaffery

Why are we desperate for star power? That's a very dan Snyder thing to say.

 

[Sharkinva]

you are right but we are so desperate for star power from that position. I don't know how you can be upset with Cook or Mccaffery

Dean... the desperate for star power line is a bad argument. The reality should be, what helps the team more. And Im only luke warm on McCaffery actually. He brings more to the table than Kelly I think, but if the choice came down to him and an above average D-lineman, in that case I might lean towards the D-lineman. I really think there are only two RBs that should be considered at 17, and I honestly dont think either of them will be there. If thats the case, it means a Reddick, or possibly one of the real blue chip Defensive players has slipped to us. But if Cook is sitting there at 17, then Im thinking most of the true difference makers on defense ( not the fringe guys projected to us because we NEED defensive help) will be there.

McCaffery is my third choice if we are going to take a RB, and option one wont be there at 17 unless he gets caught doing something really stupid in the next ten days.

 

[Stymietee]

I don't know why you keep using this argument though. Nobody's arguing take some shitty defensive player over a stud rb. I'm arguing take the risky high upside not RB player over the risky high upside RB.

The only way your argument makes sense is if Cook is some generational prospect while every defensive player in the late first range is just meh as a prospect (which considering they're projected in the mid to late first obviously isn't the case).

Let's be clear on the "generational" RB thing, in this draft there's only one and because of his past some are saying "pass" on him. Without that incident he is a top ten pick by almost all evaluations, which means under that circumstance, Cleveland would be in a position to decide between the top defensive guy and this player. Generational RB's don't come around often, hence the "generational" tag. Again there is one in this draft, what to do about him is a big issue because of his past. So I guess my question is.....is he any less a "generational" RB because of it?

 

[Sharkinva]

Why are we desperate for star power? That's a very dan Snyder thing to say.

See post 137, And for the record Im NEVER a fan of drafting some one because we are desperate for what they might bring. Desperation leads to stupidity, stupidity leads to dumb trades, dumb trades lead to the dark side. (Sorry Yoda moment)

 

[ehb5]

And your argument of how often do first round RBs work out, ignores the fact that about 70% of them go to teams that HAVE no other talent on offense. Sure some guys are just a bust period. But I would say first round RBs bust at about the same rate as top five QBs. Mainly because if you are being picked in the top five at QB, most times you are going to a team that needs a shit ton more than just a QB.

You also ignore over all impact that a RB like Cook or Fournett could have on this team... which i think is alot greater than a D lineman like McDowell. Because face it, the defense is two to three years away from being able to assist the offense in any meaningful capacity with or without another pass rusher.

I think depending on who is there, RB might be the better player, and the better compliment to the team. Do we need more defensive help... sure we do, but Im not in favor of passing on a stud RB if he is there just to say.. we are trying to improve the defense at all costs.

So youre arguing that we dont need a generational talent because we can put a lesser talent in and he'll succeed based on our other offensive talent. I think Id agree with that. But that just gives all the more reason to take a RB in the 4th and watch him thrive in this offense. It sure as hell doesnt make me wanna spend our most valuable pick on a RB.

Also looking back on the RBs taken - that claim about them failing because a lack of talent around them has a couple flaws. For one, a lot of them actually went to teams with a fair amount of talent. Most of them were not the only weapon there. On top of that, almost all of them at some point went to another team or situation where they still couldnt provide the value expected of a 1st round pick. The reality is - most of them just werent that good.

I think the only 2 you could argue may have been held back by situation were Gurley and Lynch. But I will add that if youre taking a RB in the 1st round he better be good enough to be at least decent in a shitty situation. Because otherwise hes just another guy. RBs who can produce in good offenses are there all throughout this draft. So sell me on Cook as a generational talent or else your argument really doesnt hold up.


As for the defense. No we dont HAVE to take a defensive player at 17. But saying that the defense is TOO far away for it to be worth it is not the reason. I mean seriously. Youre arguing its so bad we shouldnt even try to fix it? You realize it wont ever actually get fixed that way right?